W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-2: proposal to vote on - process execution in the past

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:09:23 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTimtdpekWFyyC5foi2i_wnH-SGc21w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Martin,

I think you are referring to my proposal, rather than Olaf's (unless
I've misunderstood).

I'm afraid I don't quite follow your argument (why is a plan relevant,
and why should the future be the same as the past?), but I may make my
case more clearly by giving concrete examples:

1. Consider writing an browser plugin with a button "Was this page
written by people I trust?" I decide to execute that query using
pattern matching against the provenance of the page, to see if it is
the result of an authorship process execution involving people on a
trusted list. How do I express that pattern in my code? I would like
to use the PIL model, but at the time of writing the code, the
authorship processes have not yet occurred. So I need to refer to a
hypothesised execution of a page in the future.

2. I am responsible for a laboratory and have regulations regarding
how materials are treated to avoid contamination. I want to express
computationally expectations on the provenance of the results which
will be produced: not their detailed provenance, but the steps I
expect to be included to avoid contamination. I am therefore
expressing executions which have not yet occurred, and maybe never
will if regulations are not followed.

I would like the model to be able to handle each of the cases above.
If I require executions to be in the past (and not just from the
perspective of the assertion), I don't believe I can.

Thanks,
Simon

On 14 June 2011 13:48, martin <martin@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> +1 to the proposal "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is
>  >>> occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of
>  >>> a process execution is always in the past."
>
>
> To my opinion, if we accept Olaf's proposal, we start messing up workflow systems
> with provenance. It is very difficult to find objective criteria that a planned event,
> completely in the future, is actually identical to one that is in the past. It becomes
> even more messy, if we want to identify the Actors for future events etc. In the CIDOC
> CRM working group, we could not agree on a coherent definition of future events that can
> become real for more than a decade. The future event is a plan, a document. This is consistent
> with any view on reality.
>
> We should stay focussed. "Provenance" is a notion of the past.
>
> For a process which has started (in the past), we can assert an outer bound,
> (any time before or equal to the start: plus infinity, using P82 in the CIDOC CRM),
> and an interval for which it is known to be ongoing (from start to "now", P81 in the (CIDOC CRM).
> The proposal on vote is consistent with ISO21127.
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 6/14/2011 2:50 PM, Olaf Hartig wrote:
>> On Tuesday 14 June 2011 13:29:27 Simon Miles wrote:
>>> +1 except for the caveat made in the last teleconference, e.g. I might
>>> be modelling what I expect the provenance of something to be in 10
>>> years time, in which case the execution is in the past of an imagined
>>> future, not in the past from now.
>>>
>>> So I would qualify the definition to something like:
>>>    "the start of a process execution is always in the past, from the
>>> position of any assertion made about it."
>>
>> +1 to the proposal with that extension.
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On 14 June 2011 11:48, Paul Groth<pgroth@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Hi All:
>>>>
>>>> In trying to move towards a definition of process execution, it would be
>>>> good to get the groups consensus on the notion of process execution
>>>> being in the past. Namely, the following is proposed from the last
>>>> telecon:
>>>>
>>>> "A process execution has either completed (occurred in the past) or is
>>>> occurring in present (partially complete). In other words, the start of
>>>> a process execution is always in the past."
>>>>
>>>> Can you express by +1/-1/0 your support for this proposal via a response
>>>> to this email message?
>>>>
>>>> The due date for responses is this Thursday before the telecon.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
>  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
>                                |  Email: martin@ics.forth.gr |
>                                                              |
>                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
>                Information Systems Laboratory                |
>                 Institute of Computer Science                |
>    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
>                                                              |
>  Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
>                                                              |
>          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>



-- 
Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:09:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:31 GMT